The Employee Survival Guide® is an employees only podcast about everything related to work and working. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about working and guide you through various work and employment law issues.
The Employee Survival Guide® podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 28 years. Mark has seen just about every type of work dispute there is and has filed several hundred work related lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits. He has a no frills and blunt approach to work issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Thank you!
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
What's the real difference between a difficult workplace and one that's legally "hostile"? This episode cuts through the legalese to reveal the actual standards courts use when determining if harassment crosses the line from unpleasant to unlawful. We unpack decades of landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped workplace discrimination law, from Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson establishing sexual harassment as discrimination, to the groundbreaking Bostock v. Clayton County extending protections to LGBTQ+ workers. Through clear explanations of key legal concepts like "severe or pervasive" and "reasonable person standard," we demystify what makes harassment actionable under federal law. The conversation moves beyond theory into practical territory, examining what documentation employees should maintain, how reporting systems affect liability, and when employers become responsible for harassment from supervisors, coworkers, or even customers. We explore nuanced questions about online harassment in remote work settings and how intersectionality affects discrimination cases when someone faces multiple forms of bias simultaneously. Whether you're an employee wondering if your workplace crosses legal boundaries, a manager seeking to understand your responsibilities, or simply curious about this evolving area of law, this episode provides a comprehensive yet accessible roadmap to navigating hostile work environment claims. Take away clear guidance on documentation strategies, reporting options including the EEOC, and how changing workplace dynamics continue to shape these critical legal protections.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
Okay, so today we're going deep on something I think pretty much anyone who's ever had a job can relate to hostile work environments.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, for sure. It's something that, unfortunately, a lot of people have experienced at some point.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely and you know it's not always clear cut what actually crosses that line legally right, exactly. Luckily, you guys have sent in some really interesting stuff for us to dig into Some AI research that breaks down some big legal cases and concepts, some AI research that breaks down some big legal cases and concepts. Plus, we've got actual excerpts from Supreme Court rulings like Bostock v Clayton County and On Kale v Sundan or offshore services.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, those are some big ones.
Speaker 1:
They are. So our goal today is to make sense of all this dense legal stuff and really give you a solid grasp on what actually defines a hostile work environment under the law.
Speaker 2:
Totally, because it goes way beyond just personality clashes or the occasional bad day at the office. Right, there's this whole legal framework built up over decades through laws and core positions, and we want to pull out the most important parts so you can really get the core principles.
Speaker 1:
OK, so let's start with the foundation. The AI research we got points out that this whole idea of a hostile work environment as a legal concept really comes from federal laws, and the big one is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Speaker 2:
Right and Title VIII. When it first came out, you know, it basically prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin.
Speaker 1:
The basics.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, but the courts have been interpreting it for years. You know, through all these different cases and that's really how they've clarified you know exactly how discrimination can show up in the workplace and that includes, you know, creating a hostile or abusive environment for people.
Speaker 1:
And it's important to remember that those original categories aren't the only ones that are protected now, right.
Speaker 2:
Oh, definitely not.
Speaker 1:
The AI research even points out that hostile work environment claims can involve discrimination based on age and disability.
Speaker 2:
For sure.
Speaker 1:
And then we've got, you know, Bostock v Clayton County, which I feel like was a really big turning point.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, bostock was huge. I mean, what's so interesting about it is how it really expanded. How we think about sex-based discrimination Right, like the case itself focused on firing someone from their job based on discrimination. But the Supreme Court went further than that Right. They said discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is basically like discriminating against them based on sex. It's like you can't separate those things.
Speaker 1:
Oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 2:
Right and that has huge implications for hostile work environment cases, because now if someone is being harassed because they're gay or transgender, it's clear that could be seen as illegal discrimination.
Speaker 1:
Creating that hostile environment.
Speaker 2:
Exactly so. You know, the law's understanding of this stuff keeps evolving.
Speaker 1:
OK. So one of the big takeaways from all this foundational stuff is that it really puts a lot of responsibility on employers.
Speaker 2:
Absolutely.
Speaker 1:
Like our AI sources are really clear that they need to have these clear policies against harassment and then ways for employees to report problems.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, they can't just like have a suggestion box and call it a day.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 2:
You know this is crucial stuff and as we get into the Supreme Court cases you'll see that having these policies can actually make a difference in whether an employer is held responsible in court.
Speaker 1:
OK, perfect segue, because that's exactly what I want to talk about next these big Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, let's do it.
Speaker 1:
The AI research lays out some of the most important decisions kind of chronologically. So let's start with Meredith Savings Bank v Vinson back in 1986. This one feels like a real cornerstone.
Speaker 2:
It really is. Vinson kind of revolutionized things, because it was the first time the Supreme Court said straight up that sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Oh wow, and before this, you know, people thought sexual harassment only really mattered legally if it had a direct economic impact.
Speaker 1:
Like you lose your job. Exactly Because you wouldn't, you know, sleep with your boss.
Speaker 2:
Right, or you know you get demoted or something. But Vinson said, even if there's no financial harm, if the harassment makes the workplace hostile and abusive, that's illegal discrimination too.
Speaker 1:
So it shifted the focus to like how it affects you as an employee, like your ability to actually do your job in this environment.
Speaker 2:
Right, it's not just about the money. It's about being able to function in a safe and respectful workplace.
Speaker 1:
OK, so it doesn't have to be like if you do this, I'll give you a promotion, kind of thing.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
Just making people feel really uncomfortable and unsafe, that can be enough.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
OK, cool. So next up we've got Harris v Forklift Systems Inc. In 1993, and this one seems to really clarify what makes a workplace hoster.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, Harris is a big one because it dealt with how bad does the harassment have to be to actually be illegal?
Speaker 1:
Right, Like where's the line?
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and the court basically said you don't have to prove that you've been psychologically damaged or anything.
Speaker 1:
Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2:
What matters is whether the environment is objectively abusive.
Speaker 1:
Meaning.
Speaker 2:
Meaning like would a reasonable person in that situation find it hostile?
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Speaker 2:
And subjectively abusive, meaning you, the person who's experiencing it, also feel that way, so it's like a two-part test.
Speaker 1:
Objective and subjective. That's a really helpful way to think about it. Right, it's not just about someone being overly sensitive, but it also says, hey, even if someone seems tough on the outside, they still deserve a workplace that's not abusive.
Speaker 2:
Absolutely. Everyone deserves to feel safe and respected at work.
Speaker 1:
Okay, so moving on, we've got two cases that were decided at the same time in 1998, Farragher v City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries Ing v Eller.
Speaker 2:
Oh yeah, those are both really important.
Speaker 1:
And they both deal with when an employer can be held responsible for harassment by a supervisor.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
So why two separate cases at the same time?
Speaker 2:
Well, it's because the court wanted to really clarify the rules around employer liability.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Speaker 2:
You know when are they on the hook for the actions of their supervisors and the main takeaway is that they can be held responsible even if the employee doesn't like lose their job or get demoted.
Speaker 1:
So even if there's no direct like negative action taken against them, Exactly Just creating that hostile environment is enough.
Speaker 2:
But and this is a big but these cases also gave employers a way to defend themselves.
Speaker 1:
OK, so like a loophole.
Speaker 2:
Well, not a loophole, exactly More like an affirmative defense.
Speaker 1:
OK, tell me more about that.
Speaker 2:
So an employer can say hey, we're not liable because we took steps to prevent harassment and we have a system for reporting it.
Speaker 1:
So like they have to show they have clear policies in place and that they actually take complaints seriously, Right, and they also have to show that the employee didn't use those systems to report the harassment. Oh, so it puts some responsibility on the employee too.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, it's like a two-way street the employer has to set up the safety net and the employee has to actually use it.
Speaker 1:
Okay, that makes sense. It encourages both sides to be proactive.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
So then also in 1998, we have another really important case Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services Inc.
Speaker 2:
Ah Oncale.
Speaker 1:
And the excerpt you sent really focused on this one. So tell me, why is this one so significant?
Speaker 2:
Well, OnKale dealt with a pretty fundamental question. Can someone be harassed by someone of the same sex and still have a claim under Title VII?
Speaker 1:
Like same-sex harassment.
Speaker 2:
Exactly and the Supreme Court said yes, they were very clear about that. Interesting. The law says you can't discriminate because of dot sex and the court basically said that harassment can be based on sex even if the harasser and the victim are the same gender.
Speaker 1:
So it doesn't matter if there's like a sexual attraction thing going on.
Speaker 2:
Right. It's about whether the harassment happened because of the victim's sex and whether it could get at a hostile environment. Got it, and the excerpt we have really emphasizes that the key is whether one sex is being treated worse than the other.
Speaker 1:
OK, that's a really important clarification. It basically says that gender based hostility, even if it's not like sexual in nature, can still be illegal.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
OK, moving right along, Our AI research talks about National Railroad Passenger Corporation v Morgan from 2002. And this one deals with the timeline for bringing these hostile work environment claims, which sounds kind of technical but also really important.
Speaker 2:
Oh, it is super important because, you know, harassment often happens over a period of time, right, it's not just one single incident.
Speaker 1:
Right, like a pattern of behavior.
Speaker 2:
Exactly so. Morgan dealt with the question of like when can an employee actually file a lawsuit based on all this stuff that's been going on, and the court came up with this thing called the continuing violation doctrine.
Speaker 1:
Okay, and what does that mean in plain English?
Speaker 2:
Basically it means that as long as at least one of the incidents that contributed to the hostile work environment happened within a certain time period, the whole period of harassment can be considered.
Speaker 1:
Oh, that's interesting. So even if some of the stuff happened a long time ago, if it was part of this ongoing pattern, it can still be relevant.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and that's really important, because it stops employers from saying, oh, that happened too long ago, you can't sue us for that.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 2:
If it was all part of the same hostile environment, it could still be part of the case.
Speaker 1:
OK, that makes sense. And then next Pennsylvania State Police v Suitors in 2004. Oh yeah, suitors is an interesting one. This one introduces the idea of constructive discharge. So tell me, what is that?
Speaker 2:
exactly. The constructive discharge is basically when an employer makes the working condition so bad that a reasonable person would feel like they had to quit.
Speaker 1:
So they're not technically fired, but they're basically forced out.
Speaker 2:
Exactly and Suitors said that if an employee quits because of really bad harassment, they can actually claim constructive discharge and sue the employer.
Speaker 1:
Wow. So the employer can't just make someone's life a living hell and then say, oh well, they quit, we didn't fire them.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
They can still be held responsible.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
OK. And then we have Vanspeed Ball State University in 2013, which clarifies who's actually considered a supervisor when it comes to employer liability Right. Why was that distinction so important?
Speaker 2:
Well, because there's a big legal difference between a supervisor and a coworker.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Speaker 2:
When it comes to a supervisor, the employer is pretty much automatically responsible for their actions.
Speaker 1:
But not for a coworker.
Speaker 2:
Well, it depends. If it's a coworker, the employer is usually only liable if they knew about the harassment and didn't do anything to stop it.
Speaker 1:
Oh OK.
Speaker 2:
So Vance really narrowed down the definition of a supervisor. They said it has to be someone who has the power to hire, fire, promote, demote things like that.
Speaker 1:
So someone with real authority over you.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
OK, that makes sense. Now our AI research also mentions a few other important cases, like EEOCV, Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, which was one of the biggest sexual harassment class action lawsuits ever.
Speaker 2:
Oh, yeah, that one was huge.
Speaker 1:
Like a massive settler.
Speaker 2:
I think it was over 30 million dollars.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, something like that. It really shows how much not dealing with these issues can cost a company.
Speaker 2:
For sure, both financially and in terms of their reputation.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely. Then there's Nichols v Azteca Restaurant Enterprises Inc. Which said that gender based harassment isn't just about sexual harassment.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, that's an important one.
Speaker 1:
It can be about not fitting into gender stereotypes too.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
Like in that case, this guy was being harassed for not being manly enough.
Speaker 2:
Exactly and the court said that's still illegal discrimination.
Speaker 1:
Wow, OK. And then there's Reeves v C Worldwide Inc. Which said that even general offensive behavior can create a hostile work environment.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
It doesn't have to be targeted at a specific person.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. If it's just like a generally toxic and offensive atmosphere, that can be enough.
Speaker 1:
OK. So even if the jokes aren't directed at you, but they're still like racist or sexist, that can be a problem.
Speaker 2:
Totally.
Speaker 1:
OK, cool, directed at you, but they're still like racist or sexist. That can be a problem. Okay, cool. And then our AI research even mentions one of the earliest cases Henson v City of Dundee, which was one of the first to say that a hostile work environment created by sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, Henson was a groundbreaking case. It really set the stage for all the cases that came after.
Speaker 1:
So it's really interesting to see how this whole area of law has developed over time.
Speaker 2:
For sure.
Speaker 1:
Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground with these cases. Now let's zoom in on some of the key legal concepts that keep popping up, as highlighted in our AI research.
Speaker 2:
Sounds good.
Speaker 1:
The first one is this severe or pervasive harassment standard that we touched on earlier with the Harris case.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
So tell me more about what that actually means in practice.
Speaker 2:
Well, the severe or pervasive standard is basically the heart of hostile work environment law.
Speaker 1:
OK.
Speaker 2:
When a court is looking at a case, they consider everything.
Speaker 1:
Like what.
Speaker 2:
Like how often the behavior happened, how bad it was, whether it was physical or just verbal, and whether it stopped the employee from doing their job.
Speaker 1:
So it's not just about one comment or one incident.
Speaker 2:
Right, usually has to be a pattern of behavior. Ok, like one mean comment might be rude, but a constant stream of insults is much more likely to be seen as creating a hostile environment.
Speaker 1:
So like one off color joke probably isn't enough, but being subjected to racist jokes all the time definitely could be Exactly. Ok cool. The next concept is the reasonable person standard. Oh yeah, that's a big one.
Speaker 2:
So when the court talks about a reasonable person.
Speaker 1:
who are they talking about exactly? Well, the reasonable person standard, oh yeah, that's a big one. So when the court talks about a reasonable person, who are they talking about exactly?
Speaker 2:
Well, the reasonable person standard is basically a way to be objective. It's not just about how the person bringing the lawsuit felt. The court tries to imagine how a typical reasonable person would react in that situation.
Speaker 1:
So it's not just about being overly sensitive.
Speaker 2:
Right, it has to be something that a normal person would find offensive or abusive. But here's an important point the reasonable person isn't always totally neutral.
Speaker 1:
OK, what do you mean?
Speaker 2:
The court can also take into account the perspective of someone who shares the plaintiff's protected characteristic.
Speaker 1:
Oh, that's interesting. So, like in a racial harassment case, they might think about how a reasonable person of that same race would feel.
Speaker 2:
Exactly Because what might seem like a harmless joke to one person could be really hurtful to someone who's experienced discrimination.
Speaker 1:
That makes a lot of sense. Ok, so we talked about employer liability with the Farragher and Eller of cases, but the AI research really emphasizes this again. What's the main takeaway here?
Speaker 2:
The big thing to remember is that employers can be held responsible for hostile work environments created by their supervisors and their co-workers.
Speaker 1:
By both.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, With supervisors it's more straightforward, especially if the supervisor took some kind of action against the employee, like demoting them.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 2:
But even with co-work, though, the employer has a responsibility. If they knew, or should have known, about the harassment and they didn't do anything, they could be in trouble.
Speaker 1:
So that's why it's so important for employers to have clear reporting systems and to take all complaints seriously.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. They can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Speaker 1:
OK, and finally, let's revisit those protected characteristics. We listed them at the beginning, but now that we've talked about all these cases, let's make sure we're all clear on who is actually protected under these laws.
Speaker 2:
So the main categories are race, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability. Okay, and remember, because of Bostock, sex now includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
Speaker 1:
Right, right. So basically, if the harassment is based on one of these things, it's illegal.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
But if it's based on something else, even if it's really mean, it might not be a hostile work environment legally speaking.
Speaker 2:
Right, but it's important to note that some states have laws that offer more protection than federal law.
Speaker 1:
Oh, that's a good point. So it's always worth checking what the laws are in your state.
Speaker 2:
For sure.
Speaker 1:
Okay, now let's switch gears and think about this from the employee's perspective.
Speaker 2:
Okay.
Speaker 1:
So let's say someone thinks they're in a hostile work environment, what should they do? Our AI research has some good tips.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, work environment what should they do? Our AI research has some good tips. Yeah, the first thing is documentation.
Speaker 1:
Write everything down.
Speaker 2:
As much as you can Dates times, what happened, who was there?
Speaker 1:
Like keep a journal.
Speaker 2:
Pretty much, because if you ever need to file a complaint, having all those details can be really helpful Right, because it's hard to remember everything after the fact Exactly. And then the next big thing is reporting.
Speaker 1:
Tell someone.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, follow your company's procedures for reporting harassment. Usually that means going to your supervisor or HR.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Speaker 2:
I know it can be scary, but it's important to give your employer a chance to fix the problem.
Speaker 1:
Right. What if the employer doesn't do anything, though? Or what if the employee doesn't feel safe reporting it internally?
Speaker 2:
Well, in that case they can go to the EEOC, the what the EEOC? It stands for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It's the federal agency that enforces all these anti-discrimination laws.
Speaker 1:
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2:
So an employee can file a complaint with them directly.
Speaker 1:
Interesting, and our research mentions that there are other resources too, right.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, a lot of states have their own agencies that handle discrimination cases.
Speaker 1:
So it's worth checking out what's available in your area.
Speaker 2:
Right, and there are also legal aid organizations that can help people who have been harassed, area Right and there are also legal aid organizations that can help people who have been harassed.
Speaker 1:
So there are options, but the main thing is document everything and report it through the proper channels.
Speaker 2:
Exactly those are the most important first steps.
Speaker 1:
Okay, now let's get into some of the more nuanced stuff.
Speaker 2:
Okay.
Speaker 1:
Our AI research points out that context is really important in these cases.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, context is everything. What might be okay in one workplace could be totally unacceptable in another.
Speaker 1:
Oh, interesting. So it depends on the culture of the company.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and the court will also look at whether there's a history of discrimination at the company.
Speaker 1:
So it's not just about the specific incident, it's about the whole environment.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
And another nuance is the power dynamics involved.
Speaker 2:
Absolutely.
Speaker 1:
Like we were saying before, harassment from a supervisor is taken more seriously than harassment from a coworker.
Speaker 2:
Because a supervisor has power over you. They can affect your job.
Speaker 1:
Right, so their actions are more threatening.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and we talked about quid pro quo harassment before. Can we just clarify the difference between that and a hostile work environment?
Speaker 1:
Yeah, good point. So quid pro quo is basically when someone in a position of power demands sexual favors in exchange for something job related.
Speaker 2:
Right, like a promotion or a raise.
Speaker 1:
OK, but a hostile work environment is more about the overall atmosphere.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. It's about whether the environment is so offensive or abusive that it makes it hard for someone to do their job.
Speaker 1:
OK, so one is more transactional and the other is about the overall climate.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
What about harassment from people who aren't actually employees at the company?
Speaker 2:
Oh yeah, Like customers or clients.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, the AI research calls that third party harassment.
Speaker 2:
Right, and employers can actually be held responsible for that too.
Speaker 1:
Really.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, if they know about it and they don't do anything to stop it.
Speaker 1:
So they have a responsibility to protect their employees from harassment, even from outsiders.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. They can't say oh well, it wasn't our employee, so it's not our problem.
Speaker 1:
OK, cool. So now all this talk about proving a hostile work environment makes me wonder how do you actually prove that, Especially since it can be so subjective?
Speaker 2:
Yeah, it's definitely tricky and that's one of the biggest challenges with these cases.
Speaker 1:
Like what.
Speaker 2:
Well, you have to balance protecting people from real harassment with preventing lawsuits that are based on nothing Right. That's where the severe or pervasive standard and the reasonable person standard come in.
Speaker 1:
Okay, and then there's the issue of how severe the harassment is versus how often it happens.
Speaker 2:
Right Like one really bad incident might be enough, even if it only happened once. But a bunch of smaller incidents can also add up to a hostile environment if they happen all the time.
Speaker 1:
Oh, that's interesting. So it's not just about the severity, it's about the frequency too.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. And then there's the problem of retaliation.
Speaker 1:
Oh yeah, that's when the employer punishes the employee for reporting the harassment right.
Speaker 2:
Right and sadly that happens a lot and that can make the whole situation even worse.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely. And finally, the AI research mentions some new challenges like online harassment and intersectionality, like online harassment and intersectionality.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, those are big ones.
Speaker 1:
So how are those changing the way we think about hostile work environments?
Speaker 2:
Well. With more people working remotely online, harassment is becoming a bigger problem.
Speaker 1:
Right, because it's all happening online.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and the courts are still figuring out how to apply the law to those situations. Okay and what about intersectionality? So intersectionality is about recognizing that people can experience discrimination based on multiple things at once.
Speaker 1:
Like being a woman and being black.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and the courts are starting to pay more attention to that because it's important to see the whole picture.
Speaker 1:
Right, because someone might be experiencing sexism and racism at the same time.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, and that can make the harassment even worse.
Speaker 1:
OK, so it seems like this is an area of law that's constantly changing and evolving.
Speaker 2:
Totally. As the workplace changes, the law has to change too.
Speaker 1:
Okay, so for all you learners out there, let's recap. What we've learned today Sounds good. First of all, a hostile work environment isn't just about someone being mean to you at work.
Speaker 2:
Right, it has to be more than that.
Speaker 1:
It has to be a pattern of behavior that's discriminatory, based on your race, sex, religion or other protected characteristics.
Speaker 2:
And it has to be severe or pervasive enough to create a truly hostile environment.
Speaker 1:
Right and we talked about all those landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped this area of law.
Speaker 2:
From Vinson all the way to Bostock.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, and we went over some of the key concepts like severe or pervasive, the reasonable person's standard and what employers are responsible for.
Speaker 2:
And don't forget about the practical stuff too.
Speaker 1:
Right Like document everything. Know your company's policies for reporting harassment and know that there are external resources like the EEOC.
Speaker 2:
Exactly, there's help out there if you need it.
Speaker 1:
Okay, so now here's something for you to think about as you go about your day.
Speaker 2:
Okay, I'm ready.
Speaker 1:
How is the changing nature of work like, with more remote work and more focus on diversity? How is that going to affect hostile work environments in the future?
Speaker 2:
Oh, that's a good question.
Speaker 1:
Right Like. What new challenges are we going to face when it comes to defining and addressing harassment in these new contexts?
Speaker 2:
Something we all need to be thinking about.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely, because this is an area of law that's not going away anytime soon, and understanding the basics is crucial for everyone.
Speaker 2:
I agree.
Speaker 1:
All right. Well, thanks for taking this deep dive with us. We'll see you next time.
